Contacts

Who to Write To

Unless pressure is applied by those affected by Gatwick in the form of letters, emails and calls – it will be assumed that there are no objections. Please make sure that you contact as many of the contacts as possible with your concerns:

Gatwick Airport:

There are a number of ways of making a complaint or making your point to Gatwick: If you have a specific complaint about an aircraft please use noise.line@gatwickairport.com or go to, http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/aircraft-noise/noise-enquiries/

If you want to make a general point then direct your message to Mr Stewart Wingate, Chief Executive Officer or Mr Tom Denton who is Head of Corporate responsibility at:

Dame Diedre Hutton is Head of the CAA you can find out more about the CAA role with regard to noise issues at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/7/EIS%2010.pdf and the next link will take you to the page on the CAA website that deals with all the rules and regulations as well as a complaint form.

The best way to get to ministers is through your local MP. If you write direct it will be a civil servant who replies. If your MP takes up your complaint the Minister must reply, MPs email addresses are below.

Secretary of State for Transport: The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport: Robert Goodwill MP has responsibility for aviation.

4 thoughts on “Contacts”

I have today received a flyer through my door informing me that my elected representatives are objecting to the expansion at Gatwick.
I want to express the view that this objection is not in my name.
I am proud of my local airport, and would much sooner see expansion at Gatwick than at Heathrow, even though I live right under the red zone of the map of the flight path.
For residents of Kent and Sussex to object to development at Gatwick is narrow and selfish Nimbyism. If aircraft noise is supposedly a problem to residents, then Gatwick is a better place to develop than Heathrow, which has far more residents in its immediate area.
Gatwick is convenient, under its new management it is a lovely airport to fly from, and it will bring valuable economic development to the area.
Thankyou for providing me with a list of all the relevant MPs etc – I shall email all of them expressing the views I have just stated above.
I hope Gatwick is successful. And in case of any misunderstanding, I have no connections of any sort with Gatwick – I just like to take a balanced view of the situation.
If you are genuinely an open minded group representing the opinions of your constituents, I trust you will post this email on your page.

I am writing to confirm that i have submitted a response to the consultation document in the form of an objection not only to the expansion of Gatwick but also the noise and pollution they are causing us all now.
I have written by email to Paul Carter and copied in all the others listed on the page above this box.
i have copied and pasted this letter (without attachments) below for information.

Robert Ball

9th January 2015-01-07

Dear Mr Carter,

Gatwick expansion, noise, pollution and danger

I am pleased to note that you have at last come to realise the amount of noise the landing aircraft make in this area not only during the day but all through the night as well. The route that landing planes take to Gatwick has slowly but surely changed over the years. I have been advised by a friend that he noticed that the stacking pattern altered to a much wider loop a few years ago so much so that landmarks he used to notice were no longer on the route. Originally the majority of planes I witnessed from my garden passed in the distance from left to right and the airline could only be identified with binoculars (refer to diagram 2). Now every incoming plane crosses over Edenbridge High Street between Roman court and the Parish church, then proceeds over the Recreation ground to Gatwick. Presumably this is the change that has made it intolerable to the residents of Bidborough Chiddingstone and Speldhurst which was mentioned in the BBC red button local news story recently.

I can remember a few years ago sitting in the Garden of the Kentish Horse pub in
Mark Beech and seeing lines of planes on the approach to Gatwick and saying to my wife thank goodness it is not like this in Edenbridge; it wasn’t then but it is now!

The officially issued maps (copy attached) provided by Gatwick indicate that the planes are approx 2 miles away. They are not! Edenbridge recreation ground is only half a mile away from my house and just about directly above my mother in Coomb Field. If I set up a machine in the recreation ground and made the sort of noise that the aircraft make all through the day and night you would have it stopped immediately. I therefore ask how it can be considered acceptable to allow Gatwick to behave like this? Additionally the increased air pollution must now be enormous all falling on those who live here. Recently a lump of a plane was discovered to be loose over Belgium which fell off over Langton Green (nr. Tunbridge Wells) whilst returning to Gatwick. Who on earth allowed a plane with a loose part to return to Gatwick over residential areas rather than land at the nearest airport presumably in Belgium? Total madness!! This was probably about money, it being more cost effective to return to Gatwick rather than incur additional cost by landing at the nearest airport. I assume the aircraft accident investigation agency will be asking the same question.
If these are the sort of people who run our airports it is simply not good enough. The health and safety of people who live and have lived here for many years is more important than the profits of Gatwick. They seem to be proud of the fact that last August they recorded a new record of 900 plus aircraft movement in a day. I am aware of the continual whine caused by incoming flights EVERY DAY when the wind is westerly orientated which is 80% of the time. At night while in bed I can hear a plane approaching passing overhead and then fading away; 30 seconds later the next one can be heard approaching and so it goes on hour after hour, all night long. How on earth is this allowed in this day and age? Another runway would be awful for everybody who finds they are suddenly on the flight path which seems to be anywhere they want. They once wrote to me stating more or less that they could go where they want, when they want, and at whatever height they want. Noise levels do not seem to be enshrined in any binding legislation as they admit that they exceed the agreed levels frequently. Their most recent letter I consider to be incredibly rude and a copy is attached for your information. I was clearly getting close to the truth regarding the changes to their stacking system and they would not admit it. Last summer and the summer of 2013 we had to sleep at night with all our windows closed because of the continual aircraft noise. This is not acceptable to anybody in what we consider to be a civilised society, bearing in mind the temperatures last summer.
We should be demanding that no night flights come in or out of Gatwick in the hours between 11.p.m and 7.00 a.m. whichever way the wind is blowing or the time of year.
More planes land at night at Gatwick than Heathrow!

Edenbridge, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, indeed most places which they now fly very low over, have been residential areas long before Gatwick was ever thought of. They need to be forced to fly over less populated areas. There is plenty of countryside still available so there needs to be legislation to make them avoid residential areas at all times irrespective of the fact it may cost them more. I do not believe that the length of approach they are now using is anything but their attempt to get more and more flights into Gatwick. In other words they stack them up then send them in to land and could not give a damn about anyone who may be affected by noise and pollution. Their recent circular to this area states that they wish to be a good neighbour. This is simply lip service and the amount of money they seem to be offering for insulation and council tax subsidy indicates the amount of money they expect to make. Nothing else! In effect it looks more like an attempt at bribery to gain support. (in case you have not seen this document a copy is attached.)

We have just heard on the news that the Air Asia flight, which is suspected of crashing into the sea, asked for permission to alter course due to bad weather. This permission was not granted due to overcrowded air space. Enough said I think!!

Finally and to summarise my total objection, not only to their future aspirations of an additional runway, but also the problems they already cause which I list below:

1. Flying unsafe aircraft with known loose parts over built up/residential areas.
2. Unrelenting noise pollution caused by continuous day and night incoming flights over built up /residential areas rather than selecting a flight path over less populated areas, which I simply do not believe is unavoidable.
3. Heavily polluting the air over built up/residential areas. It is not their air space it is the air we who live here breath!
4. Overcrowded air space in the South East.

US owned Gatwick have every intention of making the South East a runway extension with all the air and noise pollution that comes with it.
Alas for them, they are too small and unconnected. Gatwick have lied over and over again about their intentions, they said they will fly over “empty fields” (a broken promise), they break their own night flight rules, they ignore multiple complaints to their misnamed Gatwick Noise Line (GAL do not acknowledge noise levels outside of a few metres of Gatwick) and so on.
They pour their air and noise pollution down on our heads, tell us we can’t hear anything, get massive tax breaks (e.g. recent 360m from G. Osborne, no VAT, no fuel tax, no Corporation tax) and then send the profits to the US. In other words you are paying for this racket and for the cheap flights that are making a mockery out of good economic practice. The cash goes into burgers. Airlines like EasyJet are not fitting noise reducers (see http://hwcaag.org/fly-quiet/easyjet-deflector-retro-fit/), cheap partial solution that they ignore. But Lufthansa are!
What you can do is consider the air industry as a whole: i.e. “Optimisation not Expansion” before we all disappear under a noisy haze of toxins. I would like to see the asthma stats for my little village, over 30Km away from Gatwick).
What you can also do is reply to the secretive Davies Commission consultancy (before Feb 3rd): see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/increasing-the-uks-long-term-aviation-capacity.
Please spare a though for those living near Gatwick; they are getting what we will be getting if we do not curb Gatwick and the air industry in general.

If you have any problems doing the consultation you can go to http://www.cagne.org/ or GACC and download their help docs.
If you wish to get more comprehensive answers I have put my answers and some help getting started and my ideas in a sort of ‘user guide’. I have set up a temporary email address: nickcw3011-gatwickcon@yahoo.co.uk for any requests. You are welcome to that and any other resources I have gathered.

People living under the Gatwick flight path have been suffering increasingly from excessive noise disturbance from night aircraft, made worse in recent years with an increase in the number of flights – in the summer months every five minutes late at night and in the early hours.

The situation could get considerably worse if Gatwick are given the go ahead for a second runway and could have a detrimental impact on a wider area.

This will be so even without a second runway as Gatwick will press again for a relaxation of the night-flying restrictions regardless of thee decision on the Davies Commission recommendations.